Case at a Glance
Tamil Nadu bans purse seine fishing in its territorial waters, but fishermen wanted to use such nets in India’s Exclusive Economic Zone beyond. The Union’s EEZ Rules, 2025 created “Access Passes” that need verification by the State, yet by August 2026 about 226 of 257 applications were pending in Tamil Nadu and only six passes had been issued. The Supreme Court held that the Union and State regimes operate in separate spheres without conflict. It said that not processing applications in time “virtually amounts to imposing an unwritten ban”, and directed Tamil Nadu to clear applications and frame a transit channel for vessels heading to the EEZ.
The Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Act, 1983 lets the State regulate fishing in a “specified area” up to its territorial waters. G.O. MS No. 40 dated 25.03.2000 prohibited pair trawling and purse seine fishing in those waters to conserve fish stocks, and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 enforced the ban. Rule 17(7) also barred such fishing anywhere in the coastal area, which the fishermen said was used to stop them even carrying nets to the EEZ. The Madras High Court dismissed the challenge to the G.O. on 20.04.2021.
In the Supreme Court, an Expert Committee was formed in August 2022 and recommended regulation over a blanket ban. By an interim order of 24.01.2023 the Court allowed restricted purse seine fishing in the EEZ, with registration, vessel tracking, fishing only on Mondays and Thursdays and return by 6 PM. The Union then notified the Sustainable Harnessing of Fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone Rules, 2025 on 04.11.2025, providing Access Passes issued by a Union authority after verification by a State officer. As of 03.08.2026, Tamil Nadu had the lowest issuance among coastal States.
The Key Question Before the Court
How do the Union’s EEZ Rules, 2025 and Tamil Nadu’s 2020 fishing rules fit together for purse seine fishermen who need to cross territorial waters to fish in the EEZ, and can delay in processing their applications be allowed?
Two Regulatory Provinces, One Duty to Cooperate
The Court held: “There are two distinct legal regimes, operating in two regulatory provinces”. The Union regulates fishing beyond territorial waters under Entry 57 of List I, and the State regulates territorial waters under Entry 21 of List II. Accordingly, “there is no conflict between the EEZ Rules, 2025 of the Union and the Marine Fishery Regulation Rules, 2020”, and “The powers of both the Union and the State are co-equal and autonomous in each of their legislative spheres.” The Court referred to Union of India v. Mohit Minerals Private Ltd., (2022) 05 SC CK 0111 on cooperative federalism, and to State of Kerala v. Joseph Antony, (1993) 11 SC CK 0041 and Kerala Swathanthra Malaya Thozhilali Federation v. Kerala Trawlnet Boat Operators’ Association, (1994) 06 SC CK 0008 on regulating fishing methods.
The fishermen’s right under Article 19(1)(g) is subject to reasonable regulation, but regulation has to work in practice. The figures “demonstrates a lack of coordinated endeavour between the Issuing Authority appointed by the Union” and the State’s verifying officers. The Court held: “Not processing the applications in time, virtually amounts to imposing an unwritten ban, which is impermissible in law.” It directed Tamil Nadu to “ensure effective, efficient and timely clearance of the applications as per the rules”. It also asked the State to frame rules designating a channel for vessels to transit to the EEZ, taking into account the Expert Committee’s final recommendations.
What the Court Actually Held
- The Union’s EEZ Rules, 2025 and the Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation Rules, 2020 operate in separate, co-equal legislative spheres and do not conflict.
- Failure to process Access Pass applications in time amounts to an unwritten ban, which is impermissible in law.
- Tamil Nadu must ensure effective, efficient and timely clearance of applications, and frame rules under Rules 15(5) and 15(6) designating a transit channel from territorial waters to the EEZ for purse seine vessels.
- Rights and liabilities of the parties will now be governed by the EEZ Rules, 2025 and the 2020 State Rules; the I.A. was disposed of with these directions.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It resolves a long-running dispute between Tamil Nadu’s territorial-water ban and the Union’s EEZ regime.
- It holds that administrative delay can itself amount to an unlawful prohibition on a lawful occupation.
- It gives practical effect to cooperative federalism by requiring a transit channel and timely State verification.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Fishermen
- Purse seine fishing in the EEZ is governed by the Union’s EEZ Rules, 2025 and needs an Access Pass.
- Tamil Nadu must verify applications in a timely manner; unexplained delay can be challenged as an unwritten ban.
- The State ban on purse seine fishing within territorial waters continues; a transit channel is to be designated.
For Counsel and Governments
- Frame challenges to administrative inaction as a restriction on Article 19(1)(g) when processing is stalled.
- Use the Entry 57 List I and Entry 21 List II division when Union and State marine regulations overlap.
- States should notify the transit channel rules, taking the Expert Committee’s final report into account.
Key Takeaways
- Union EEZ rules and State territorial-water rules are co-equal and do not conflict.
- Delay in processing access passes is an unwritten ban and is impermissible.
- Tamil Nadu must clear applications on time and frame a transit channel.
- Purse seine fishing in the EEZ is regulated, not banned.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Tamil Nadu fishermen use purse seine nets in the EEZ?
Yes, subject to the Union’s EEZ Rules, 2025 and an Access Pass. The State’s ban applies within its territorial waters, and the State must frame a transit channel for vessels going to the EEZ.
What did the Court say about pending applications?
It said not processing applications in time virtually amounts to an unwritten ban, which is impermissible, and directed Tamil Nadu to ensure timely clearance.
Is there a conflict between Union and State fishing rules?
No. The Court held that the Union regulates beyond territorial waters and the State within them, with co-equal and autonomous powers in each sphere.
Conclusion
Fisherman Care v. Government of India, (2026) 09 SC CK 0099 settles how Union and State rules on marine fishing fit together. It also holds that leaving applications unprocessed is not regulation but a prohibition the law does not allow.
Practical takeaway: Fishermen whose EEZ Access Pass applications are stuck with State verifying officers can rely on this judgment to press for timely decisions. State fisheries departments should notify the transit channel rules without delay.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com